Not sure why this is a good idea

[Lundboy54]

As former president Trump would say.... money money money...... money!!!! Your fired.
Someday I hope utah dwr will care more about our wildlife then the bank account but until then there's nothing we can do.

https://www.change.org/p/idaho-game-and-...wOYg51uVdw

All who agree please sign this

[MACMAN]

Sign this petition. I realize I am way too passionate about these fish to have a non-bias opinion, but I can’t believe people are actually drinking up this Kool Aid that this is a good thing. It is obvious there was a pre meditated social media response prepared by the DWR due to the fact they knew this was going to have horrible optics- as it should. They have similar responses on Facebook as seen here. This study should have included public opinion before plans were made. I don’t think it’s coincidental that Scott hasn’t chimed in. He has a love of the fish of Bear Lake as much as anyone and my guess is he disapproves of this as much as I do. If I’m wrong, I will admit it and I’m sure he will jump in. Just my opinion. As far as these bullet points- I’m still missing why Bear Lake should be harvested to supply a mature population of Lakers to Stanley. If the study has to be done, do it and put the fish back. I’m still worried that this will lead to future change to how lake trout are managed and we may see dramatic reduction or even elimination of them in Bear lake. That would be horrible.  As far as the 0 angling impact, think about this. 400 lake trout removed. If there’s a 50% mortality that’s 600. The average Mac I catch is 8-10 pounds. That’s 4-6000 pounds and around 18,000 inches of fish biomass gone. I’ve also caught a bunch of tagged fish. The return data was on average for 10 tagged fish was around 24 years old. We’ve got them as old as 35 yo. That is a staggering 10-15,000 years in only 4-600 fish. These aren’t rainbow, Kokanee or walleyes that have relatively short life spans and the next fish can just fill their spot. These fish are truly treasures and should be treated that way. We need to get this stopped. Sign the petition.

[obifishkenobi]

My opinion is that, the plan seems well thought through and reasonable, and cooperation between states natural resource agency is a good thing, and may pay off in the future when Utah will be able to cash in the favor to improve or restore one of its fisheries with Idaho assistance. I tend to trust the biologist who have experience collecting fish this way when they say there will be minimum impact and acceptably low mortality rate. Is it really a 50% morality rate where is that number your citing coming from or is it lower or higher, I don’t recall I may have missed it in the bullet points. What I didn’t miss was 400 fish make up less than 1% of the total population of lake trout over 4 years old and that up to a 10% reduction of fish is undetectable in creel surveys. So In theory they could take many more fish with a really high mortality rate without negatively effecting the fishery. I see no reason to be concerned to the contrary I’m encouraged by interstate cooperation.

[Jonesy84404]

Will the lake be open to fishing during this netting period? Does this time period of netting inter fear with the spawning cycle of the Bear Lake Cutthroat? And will the public be able to see and watch this activity for there selves to see things are being taken care of as stated in the above articles?

[MACMAN]

Will the lake be open to fishing during this netting period? Does this time period of netting inter fear with the spawning cycle of the Bear Lake Cutthroat? And will the public be able to see and watch this activity for there selves to see things are being taken care of as stated in the above articles?

Those are great questions. You should email them to everyone involved.

[BearLakeFishGuy]

Hi guys,
I have literally been out in the field this entire week.  I have also been on my cell phone and email accounts more than I care to admit.  I appreciate Chris stepping in during my absence and sharing everything he has.  Lake trout anglers are a very passionate and serious group of anglers.  With that said, please understand that this study would not have been proposed or supported if either agency or any of the biologists would have thought there was any chance of it harming the lake trout fishery at Bear Lake.  The information we will gain from the study (allowing us to determine whether any natural recruitment of lake trout is occurring in Bear Lake, how well the triploid fish are growing and surviving, and also allowing UDWR to assist IDFG with endangered fish recovery efforts.  

PLEASE, if you are unconvinced, by what I or Chris have said, go back and re-read the points that Chris made in the earlier posts.  Those points were meant to describe the methods and reasons why we are doing this study.  In summary, these are very short term net sets (2 hrs), ALL cutthroat will be released, along with other species.  Lake trout will be tagged and there should be fast turn-around to determine whether they are triploid or diploid and then ALL diploid fish will be release.   The fish that will be transferred to Stanley Lake will all be triploid fish.  UDWR will continue to stock triploid lake trout in Bear Lake.  We do know that lake trout anglers are passionate, especially at Bear Lake, but we should not see any short OR long-term impacts from this study.  This is not something that is planned to continue in the future.  Back in the early and mid-1990's, when I was a young biologist,  the UDWR and IDFG also caught a lot of flack from anglers when we did a mark-recapture study on lake trout (and cutthroat trout) where gill nets were used.  However, the information gained from that study was used to determine future stocking numbers of lake trout (and cutthroat trout) and has been used to provide the fishery that we are now enjoying 20 years later.  Some of the results from this proposed study will be used to ensure that 20 years from now we can still enjoy that fishery that we have today.  Without doing these types of studies every decade or two, there is no guarantee that we will make the correct decisions to provide the best fishery we can in the future.  Finally, as Chris said, fisheries management is a balancing (juggling) act sometimes, and in order to do that to the best of our ability, we have to sometimes conduct studies that everyone may not agree with.  I can assure you that us biologists (speaking for myself and many others) are passionate about fishing too and we want the best fisheries for everyone.
Thanks!
Scott (BearLakeFishGuy)

[Lundboy54]

Hi guys,
I have literally been out in the field this entire week.  I have also been on my cell phone and email accounts more than I care to admit.  I appreciate Chris stepping in during my absence and sharing everything he has.  Lake trout anglers are a very passionate and serious group of anglers.  With that said, please understand that this study would not have been proposed or supported if either agency or any of the biologists would have thought there was any chance of it harming the lake trout fishery at Bear Lake.  The information we will gain from the study (allowing us to determine whether any natural recruitment of lake trout is occurring in Bear Lake, how well the triploid fish are growing and surviving, and also allowing UDWR to assist IDFG with endangered fish recovery efforts.  

PLEASE, if you are unconvinced, by what I or Chris have said, go back and re-read the points that Chris made in the earlier posts.  Those points were meant to describe the methods and reasons why we are doing this study.  In summary, these are very short term net sets (2 hrs), ALL cutthroat will be released, along with other species.  Lake trout will be tagged and there should be fast turn-around to determine whether they are triploid or diploid and then ALL diploid fish will be release.   The fish that will be transferred to Stanley Lake will all be triploid fish.  UDWR will continue to stock triploid lake trout in Bear Lake.  We do know that lake trout anglers are passionate, especially at Bear Lake, but we should not see any short OR long-term impacts from this study.  This is not something that is planned to continue in the future.  Back in the early and mid-1990's, when I was a young biologist,  the UDWR and IDFG also caught a lot of flack from anglers when we did a mark-recapture study on lake trout (and cutthroat trout) where gill nets were used.  However, the information gained from that study was used to determine future stocking numbers of lake trout (and cutthroat trout) and has been used to provide the fishery that we are now enjoying 20 years later.  Some of the results from this proposed study will be used to ensure that 20 years from now we can still enjoy that fishery that we have today.  Without doing these types of studies every decade or two, there is no guarantee that we will make the correct decisions to provide the best fishery we can in the future.  Finally, as Chris said, fisheries management is a balancing (juggling) act sometimes, and in order to do that to the best of our ability, we have to sometimes conduct studies that everyone may not agree with.  I can assure you that us biologists (speaking for myself and many others) are passionate about fishing too and we want the best fisheries for everyone.
Thanks!
Scott (BearLakeFishGuy)

Scott i think u guys are missinh our point you are first putting a 2.2 mile long net in the lake that is lime fishing with dynamite. A far cry from the smaller nets u put out. Second macman said it best he gas had his hands on 37 degree water for many minutes try too not kill any fish me as well and im sure many other lakers because we know how many things have too go right to get a fish to grow that big they are special. I would also go back and look at your fishing reports they always say large lakers take a long time too grow and many anglers encourage others too put them back. Now we are just going too give them too idaho because they screwed up a lake. Not counting the ones that die in this enormous net and some will die despite your best efforts. DWR and the dedicated anglers have turned that lake into a fantastic fisher. Keep it up don't mess IT UP.

Moderator note. Using the F-word in any form, even with letter subs to mask it , is definitely off limits in our rules. I changed the word to :"mess".

[MACMAN]

Thanks for chiming in Scott. Even though I am adamantly against this, I get the need for studies to be done, even if that includes mortality. I still have not seen any answer to why these 400 fish need to be put into Stanley where they have been removing the lake trout. Seems counter productive. If it’s the sterile vs fertile issue, well that seems like Idaho’s fish managements problem to solve, they caused it. It’s not Bear Lake/Utah’s problem. Why can’t they just wait out their triploid stock grow. Bryce Neilson is against this. His countless years studying and making recommendations should mean something. He deserves to at least be heard. He deserves that respect. I get why you need to defend this, but I’m guessing you and Bryce are more aligned than not. Biology hasn’t changed that much since he left. Again, thanks for being open to let us voice our opinions. Hopefully they will mean something.

[BearLakeFishGuy]

We admit the nets are definitely long, but the set time is very key here.  When the UDWR nets as part of the regular assessment, the nets are set for 24 hour soaks.  It is not necessarily designed to keep the fish in the nets alive.  It is a logistial and cost effective means to sample the fish population.  The lake trout study has net soak times 1/12 that.  The goal is 1-2 hour soak times; and this IS designed to minimize motalities on ALL species of fish.  It is extremely labor intensive, but it is necessary to ensure the high survival that we desire.  

I want to address Stanley Lake now.  I have never been to Stanley Lake,  let alone sampled it.  But the lake trout (diploid) fish that are/were in Stanley Lake most likely came from an illegal introduction.  That is why IDFG spent a lot of money, time and netting effort to reduce and/or eliminate the diploid lake trout from Stanley Lake.  It is not a lake that could be treated with rotenone, one obvious reason is due to the endangered sockeye found there.  Anglers enjoyed the lake trout fishery and IDFG wanted to use triploid lake trout for a few reasons.  One is make sure there is no future natural recruitment of lake trout, and thus reduce uncontrolled predation on the endangered sockeye by the expanding population of naturally recruited lake trout.  Another reason was is to maintain a fishing opportunity for lake trout (the anglers up there like the lake trout too).  We've been asked why not wait for the triploid lakers stocked by IDFG to grow instead of supplementing them with larger triploid lake trout from Bear Lake.  Adding larger, sterile lake trout from Bear Lake may allow the existing sterile lake trout to mate with any remaining diploid fish (which would likely result in either no survival of eggs, or at least reduced survival of eggs).  This is referred to as "swamping" and has been shown to work with other fish species such as rainbow trout.

Finally, I do agree that anglers on Bear Lake encourage other anglers to release the large lake trout since they do take 20-30+ years to reach the "trophy" size fish that are highly desirable.  Most anglers are aware that larger lake trout also aren't the best tasting fish out there since they are quite oily and fishy tasting.  The currently daily catch limit on trout (lake trout and/or cutthroat trout) is two fish on Bear Lake.  If someone wants to keep a limit of large lake trout, they are permitted by law to do so.  That conservative limit is in place to protect the lake trout fishery from overharvest.  However, with the current number of lake trout stocked in Bear Lake annually, we feel the daily harvest limit is biologically sustainable even if we saw people harvesting lake trout (which many do not).   

I can't promise I can address every and all questions, since I would be on BFT all day doing so and neglecting my other job responsibilities.  I also plan to enjoy this weekend out camping somewhere away from TV, internet, etc.    Thanks everyone for your comments. I hope the comments I provided (and those by Chris earlier this week) were informative.

[MACMAN]

Thanks Scott, I guess the Stanley thing makes sense in theory. How sure is the DWR that these old fish that have only known Bear Lake for 30 years will even survive the 300 mile trip and adapt to the new eco system. Sure seems like it would have made sense to do a trial run with like ten fish with GPS trackers to see if they die. There seems to be enough questions this should have been a RAC agenda item or at least a town hall meeting.

I have a final question: I’m not a big sky is falling guy. I’m the one telling everyone Obama and Biden aren’t taking your guns so stop buying all the ammo. But, I fear that this “study” will lead to restrictions on Lake Trout, under the guise of protecting endemic species. So, can you guarantee that the stocking numbers of macs will remain the same or more, the angling limits won’t be relaxed or god forbid a catch and kill order/lake trout eradication won’t take place (ie: Yellowstone Lake)? Can you confirm that will be the case? Chris, feel free to respond if you can. I would be done with this issue if you can. Whatever that’s worth, probably not much tho.

[Lundboy54]

Thanks Scott, I guess the Stanley thing makes sense in theory. How sure is the DWR that these old fish that have only known Bear Lake for 30 years will even survive the 300 mile trip and adapt to the new eco system. Sure seems like it would have made sense to do a trial run with like ten fish with GPS trackers to see if they die. There seems to be enough questions this should have been a RAC agenda item or at least a town hall meeting.

I have a final question:  I’m not a big sky is falling guy. I’m the one telling everyone Obama and Biden aren’t taking your guns so stop buying all the ammo. But, I fear that this “study” will lead to restrictions on Lake Trout, under the guise of protecting endemic species. So, can you guarantee that the stocking numbers of macs will remain the same or more, the angling limits won’t be relaxed or god forbid a catch and kill order/lake trout eradication won’t take place (ie: Yellowstone Lake)?  Can you confirm that will be the case?  Chris, feel free to respond if you can. I would be done with this issue if you can. Whatever that’s worth, probably not much tho.

They can have my guns but dont touch the lake trout. Again i do understand that the dwr cant please everyone but we pay for this and the way i see it from all the discussions i see this is a 10 to 1 people dont like this. It just seems like we know best now like it Is all we get. I for one hope this can be stopped.

[BearLakeFishGuy]

Thanks Scott, I guess the Stanley thing makes sense in theory. How sure is the DWR that these old fish that have only known Bear Lake for 30 years will even survive the 300 mile trip and adapt to the new eco system. Sure seems like it would have made sense to do a trial run with like ten fish with GPS trackers to see if they die. There seems to be enough questions this should have been a RAC agenda item or at least a town hall meeting.

I have a final question:  I’m not a big sky is falling guy. I’m the one telling everyone Obama and Biden aren’t taking your guns so stop buying all the ammo. But, I fear that this “study” will lead to restrictions on Lake Trout, under the guise of protecting endemic species. So, can you guarantee that the stocking numbers of macs will remain the same or more, the angling limits won’t be relaxed or god forbid a catch and kill order/lake trout eradication won’t take place (ie: Yellowstone Lake)?  Can you confirm that will be the case?  Chris, feel free to respond if you can. I would be done with this issue if you can. Whatever that’s worth, probably not much tho.

I'd like to respond to this by saying that there are no plans to change the current stocking of lake trout and/or cutthroat trout in Bear Lake with the results of this study.  Nor would there be a catch/kill regulation implemented on lake trout.  I can tell you that the stocking of both species IS dependent upon the numbers of Bonneville cisco and Bear Lake sculpin in Bear Lake since both cisco and sculpin are the main diets items of both cutthroat trout and lake trout (stocking of predators, either cutthroat trout and/or lake trout is dictated by the bi-state Bear Lake Fisheries Management plan objectives for each species). In fact, UDWR has made several adjustments to cutthroat trout and lake trout stocking numbers during the last 40 years.  Both cisco and sculpin numbers are monitored closely by both the UDWR and IDFG and the best "tool" the fisheries managers have to protect the endemic forage fish is to adjust stocking numbers to balance the stocked predators with the endemic prey.  One thing for sure is that fish populations are always in a state of flux due to many factors (some we can control, such as stocking numbers and fishing regulations; and others we can't control, such as drought, lake levels, temperatures, etc.) and being able to make adjustments allows us to do the best job we can to manage a fishery by using the best data we have available.

[wiperhunter2]

I'd like to respond to this by saying that there are no plans to change the current stocking of lake trout and/or cutthroat trout in Bear Lake with the results of this study.  Nor would there be a catch/kill regulation implemented on lake trout.  I can tell you that the stocking of both species IS dependent upon the numbers of Bonneville cisco and Bear Lake sculpin in Bear Lake since both cisco and sculpin are the main diets items of both cutthroat trout and lake trout (stocking of predators, either cutthroat trout and/or lake trout is dictated by the bi-state Bear Lake Fisheries Management plan objectives for each species). In fact, UDWR has made several adjustments to cutthroat trout and lake trout stocking numbers during the last 40 years.  Both cisco and sculpin numbers are monitored closely by both the UDWR and IDFG and the best "tool" the fisheries managers have to protect the endemic forage fish is to adjust stocking numbers to balance the stocked predators with the endemic prey.  One thing for sure is that fish populations are always in a state of flux due to many factors (some we can control, such as stocking numbers and fishing regulations; and others we can't control, such as drought, lake levels, temperatures, etc.) and being able to make adjustments allows us to do the best job we can to manage a fishery by using the best data we have available.

Scott, you and Chris have addressed my concerns about this issue, pulling nets every 2 hour is a daunting task, I assume they will be pulled at the end of each day until they reach their quota? You said cisco and sculpin are the cutts and macks main diet, are the chubs in BL is such low numbers that they do not add to their diet in any significant way?

[Jonesy84404]

I'd like to respond to this by saying that there are no plans to change the current stocking of lake trout and/or cutthroat trout in Bear Lake with the results of this study.  Nor would there be a catch/kill regulation implemented on lake trout.  I can tell you that the stocking of both species IS dependent upon the numbers of Bonneville cisco and Bear Lake sculpin in Bear Lake since both cisco and sculpin are the main diets items of both cutthroat trout and lake trout (stocking of predators, either cutthroat trout and/or lake trout is dictated by the bi-state Bear Lake Fisheries Management plan objectives for each species). In fact, UDWR has made several adjustments to cutthroat trout and lake trout stocking numbers during the last 40 years.  Both cisco and sculpin numbers are monitored closely by both the UDWR and IDFG and the best "tool" the fisheries managers have to protect the endemic forage fish is to adjust stocking numbers to balance the stocked predators with the endemic prey.  One thing for sure is that fish populations are always in a state of flux due to many factors (some we can control, such as stocking numbers and fishing regulations; and others we can't control, such as drought, lake levels, temperatures, etc.) and being able to make adjustments allows us to do the best job we can to manage a fishery by using the best data we have available.

Scott, you and Chris have addressed my concerns about this issue, pulling nets every 2 hour is a daunting task, I assume they will be pulled at the end of each day until they reach their quota? You said cisco and sculpin are the cutts and macks main diet, are the chubs in BL is such low numbers that they do not add to their diet in any significant way?

Scott is the lake going to be open to fishing and boating during this gill net study?

[cyprinus_23]

I'd like to respond to this by saying that there are no plans to change the current stocking of lake trout and/or cutthroat trout in Bear Lake with the results of this study.  Nor would there be a catch/kill regulation implemented on lake trout.  I can tell you that the stocking of both species IS dependent upon the numbers of Bonneville cisco and Bear Lake sculpin in Bear Lake since both cisco and sculpin are the main diets items of both cutthroat trout and lake trout (stocking of predators, either cutthroat trout and/or lake trout is dictated by the bi-state Bear Lake Fisheries Management plan objectives for each species). In fact, UDWR has made several adjustments to cutthroat trout and lake trout stocking numbers during the last 40 years.  Both cisco and sculpin numbers are monitored closely by both the UDWR and IDFG and the best "tool" the fisheries managers have to protect the endemic forage fish is to adjust stocking numbers to balance the stocked predators with the endemic prey.  One thing for sure is that fish populations are always in a state of flux due to many factors (some we can control, such as stocking numbers and fishing regulations; and others we can't control, such as drought, lake levels, temperatures, etc.) and being able to make adjustments allows us to do the best job we can to manage a fishery by using the best data we have available.

Scott, you and Chris have addressed my concerns about this issue, pulling nets every 2 hour is a daunting task, I assume they will be pulled at the end of each day until they reach their quota? You said cisco and sculpin are the cutts and macks main diet, are the chubs in BL is such low numbers that they do not add to their diet in any significant way?


wiperhunter2 - good questions.  My understanding is the most of the netting will take place in the early morning hours and then the nets will be rested on the boat at the end of each session. The active netting could just as soon take place at night too.  Either way, the netting is most effective in low light hours when fish have a harder time seeing the nets.  Plus there's the other benefits of cooler surface water, less boat traffic, etc.  Idaho would be best to answer the stipulations of the netting with the contractor such as whether they are contracted to stay until they get the 400 fish or whether they are simply mobilized for roughly 10 days.  I'm inclined to think it's the latter as with most of our transfer work we have a target number of fish we'd like to get, but can usually make do if we fall short in numbers but are somewhere in the ballpark of the number we need. 

I'll let Scott chime in regarding the chub question.

[wiperhunter2]

I'd like to respond to this by saying that there are no plans to change the current stocking of lake trout and/or cutthroat trout in Bear Lake with the results of this study.  Nor would there be a catch/kill regulation implemented on lake trout.  I can tell you that the stocking of both species IS dependent upon the numbers of Bonneville cisco and Bear Lake sculpin in Bear Lake since both cisco and sculpin are the main diets items of both cutthroat trout and lake trout (stocking of predators, either cutthroat trout and/or lake trout is dictated by the bi-state Bear Lake Fisheries Management plan objectives for each species). In fact, UDWR has made several adjustments to cutthroat trout and lake trout stocking numbers during the last 40 years.  Both cisco and sculpin numbers are monitored closely by both the UDWR and IDFG and the best "tool" the fisheries managers have to protect the endemic forage fish is to adjust stocking numbers to balance the stocked predators with the endemic prey.  One thing for sure is that fish populations are always in a state of flux due to many factors (some we can control, such as stocking numbers and fishing regulations; and others we can't control, such as drought, lake levels, temperatures, etc.) and being able to make adjustments allows us to do the best job we can to manage a fishery by using the best data we have available.

Scott, you and Chris have addressed my concerns about this issue, pulling nets every 2 hour is a daunting task, I assume they will be pulled at the end of each day until they reach their quota? You said cisco and sculpin are the cutts and macks main diet, are the chubs in BL is such low numbers that they do not add to their diet in any significant way?


wiperhunter2 - good questions.  My understanding is the most of the netting will take place in the early morning hours and then the nets will be rested on the boat at the end of each session. The active netting could just as soon take place at night too.  Either way, the netting is most effective in low light hours when fish have a harder time seeing the nets.  Plus there's the other benefits of cooler surface water, less boat traffic, etc.  Idaho would be best to answer the stipulations of the netting with the contractor such as whether they are contracted to stay until they get the 400 fish or whether they are simply mobilized for roughly 10 days.  I'm inclined to think it's the latter as with most of our transfer work we have a target number of fish we'd like to get, but can usually make do if we fall short in numbers but are somewhere in the ballpark of the number we need. 

I'll let Scott chime in regarding the chub question.

Thanks Chris.

[MACMAN]

I have a final question:  I’m not a big sky is falling guy. I’m the one telling everyone Obama and Biden aren’t taking your guns so stop buying all the ammo. But, I fear that this “study” will lead to restrictions on Lake Trout, under the guise of protecting endemic species. So, can you guarantee that the stocking numbers of macs will remain the same or more, the angling limits won’t be relaxed or god forbid a catch and kill order/lake trout eradication won’t take place (ie: Yellowstone Lake)?  Can you confirm that will be the case?  Chris, feel free to respond if you can. I would be done with this issue if you can. Whatever that’s worth, probably not much tho.

I'd like to respond to this by saying that there are no plans to change the current stocking of lake trout and/or cutthroat trout in Bear Lake with the results of this study.  Nor would there be a catch/kill regulation implemented on lake trout.  I can tell you that the stocking of both species IS dependent upon the numbers of Bonneville cisco and Bear Lake sculpin in Bear Lake since both cisco and sculpin are the main diets items of both cutthroat trout and lake trout (stocking of predators, either cutthroat trout and/or lake trout is dictated by the bi-state Bear Lake Fisheries Management plan objectives for each species). In fact, UDWR has made several adjustments to cutthroat trout and lake trout stocking numbers during the last 40 years.  Both cisco and sculpin numbers are monitored closely by both the UDWR and IDFG and the best "tool" the fisheries managers have to protect the endemic forage fish is to adjust stocking numbers to balance the stocked predators with the endemic prey.  One thing for sure is that fish populations are always in a state of flux due to many factors (some we can control, such as stocking numbers and fishing regulations; and others we can't control, such as drought, lake levels, temperatures, etc.) and being able to make adjustments allows us to do the best job we can to manage a fishery by using the best data we have available.

I’ll take that answer to my question as a absolutely, positively 100% “MABEY”. 

Thanks for at least answering, I do appreciate and respect that you and Chris are at least defending it publicly.  I wish it would have be open for public input as a proposal, but I guess that’s water under the bridge. I still think Bryce Neilson deserves to be heard and you guys are clearly not wanting to respond about his opinion. Which I understand, as he is one of your own. We are just going to be on opposite sides of this issue. Good luck. Please take care of the fish I love and respect more than any other species at my favorite place in the world.

[Mildog]

Chris,
Thank you very much for the explanation of the plan and the process. It sounds well thought out and planned. It is good to hear the information and an explanation of why and how it will be done. This I would think, will help people understand the process and the efforts to
Minimize the impact on Bear Lake while also using it to provide solid scientific information, that may benefit Bear lake in the future. From the information you gave it seems reasonable to
Me.
Regards,
Mildog